District Registrars lack jurisdiction to adjudicate civil rights; aggrieved parties must approach civil courts.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

The writ order dated 05.04.2024 in W.P.No.15246 of 2020 is under challenge in the present writ proceedings.

2. The order passed by the District Registrar under Section 68 (2) of the Registration Act came to be challenged in the writ proceedings. The learned Single Judge found that the Registrar has assumed jurisdiction of the civil Court and recorded a statement of some persons for the purpose of crystallizing the civil rights of the parties, which is impermissible under the provisions of the . Legal decision in this regard has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in M.Kathirvel Vs. Inspector General of Registration , Department of Registration and others reported in (2024) 4 CTC 769 and para

178 of the said judgment reads as under:-

178. Section 68 [2] of Registration Act was interpreted to confer power on the District Registrar to cancel the document for irregularities in registration. As this Court has already held that Section 77-A of the Act is unconstitutional as it is contrary to the object of the Act, any circular or order or direction enabling the District Registrar or Registering Officer to cancel registration or invalidating any transaction is unconstitutional and hence, the impugned circular dated 08.11.2017 is declared as unconstitutional. The writ petition stands allowed.

3. In view of the legal principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the aggrieved person has to approach the competent civil Court of law for the purpose of establishing their civil rights in the manner known to law.

4. In view of the above, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.